Hey Kev, I certainly appreciate your input there. I actually like this type communication. I find that I learn a great deal.
Again, Thanks. Rafael. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:10 AM Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Programmer(s)/User(s) crashing my system. > You're better off with a swap partition. Or several of them. > > Swap files are the domain of legacy OSes, and even there, I'd advise a > partition holding nothing except the swap file. > > Double the ram is an OK rule of thumb, but it's more art than hard and fast > rule. Tidal's server has been up for well past 100 days now, and swap usage > is less than 1 meg. That's because they have a ton of RAM. They'd be fine > with 512, but they have well past a Gig. > > I'm building a very similar system now with almost 3 Gigs of RAM. And I'd > bet money that I don't even need swap for that system. It'll be there 'just > in case', but it'll only be about 512Megs. I think after that it's just a > waste of disk space, unless you're doing something that you KNOW will need > the space. And frankly, I'd suggest adding RAM in that case anyway. With > RAM at something like $1000 a Gig (USD for ECC) I'd say that when in doubt, > add RAM. Even if it doesn't solve the problem, it's just a good thing > because you'll cache more, which will make the server more responsive. > > Remember to configure your kernel correctly if you have a whack of RAM. > > Just a thought, you might want to put in a second disk, and split up your > heavier used partitions across more than one disk. If the system is > thrashing, then just put /swap on the second disk (which should ideally be > on a different controller as well). That'll be the easiest fix. > > I still say, move to a 2.4 kernel. Start there. In my opinion, that was > the point where Linux moved from a hobby to an enterprise ready kernel. And > as lots of people have indicated, it had an ugly start with serious Virtual > Memory issues. To which I say ADD RAM. There is no reason to use swap. I > can understand having one available, but I don't understand why you'd > actually plan to use it on a newish server. There are better places to cut > costs. > > Geez, I turned all ranty and grumpy there... I knew starching my underwear > was a bad idea... > > Kev. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. Rafael S�nchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:25 AM > Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Programmer(s)/User(s) crashing my system. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Aaron J. Seigo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11:39 PM > > Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Programmer(s)/User(s) crashing my system. > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > On Wednesday 13 November 2002 02:09, J. Rafael S�nchez wrote: > > > > > I have a server that has gone past 20 CPU loads, and it hasn't > crashed > > > > > (RH7.2) I don't think being busy is a problem. It never has been > for > > > > > me, at least... > > > > > > > > Wow! That's good to know - I've seen cpu loads of 5 overhere and I've > > been > > > > a bit concerned. Thanks. > > > > > > it's the concept of "graceful degradation", e.g. no matter how much > > pressure > > > you put on the system it should simply slow down more and more but never > > > actually stop. > > > > > > the VM has been the achiles heel for linux in reaching this goal, but > > handling > > > processes never really has been much of a problem. > > > > > > > By the way, my assumption has always been to put the swap partitions > > where > > > > they're best needed (/usr, /home) is this a good assumption? > > > > > > do you mean swap partitions or swap files? because the concept of > "where" > > the > > > swap is kept really only matters if they are files. if they are > > partitions, > > > then relation to mounted filesystems has nothing to do (or at least very > > > little) with where those filesystems are mounted... > > > > You know, I didn't know there was a difference between swap part(s) and > swap > > files. Whenever I do an installation, I create (single os-linux only): > > /dev/hda1 ==>> /, > > /dev/hda2 ==>> extended, > > /dev/hda5 ==>> /tmp, > > /dev/hda6 ==>> /usr > > /dev/hda7 ==>> /swap (the size allocated to this one, to me, has depended > on > > the amount of physical mem. I usually double it - I also determine whether > > to make one or more partition -) > > /dev/hda8 ==>> /home > > /dev/hda9 ==>> /usr/local (this one depends on the purpose of the system) > > /dev/hda10 ==>> /var > > > > I create /swap "partition(s)". I'd like to know what is a swap file and > its > > purpose. Does the system create swap file as it needs them based on swap > > partitions? Are they temporary files? What's their relationship in regards > > to the performance of a system? > > > > > > Thanks Aaron. > > Rafael. > > > > > > > but you basically want your swap partitions wherever they will be fast > to > > > access with little contention, e.g. on their own controller and disk if > > > possible .... > > > > > > - -- > > > Aaron J. Seigo > > > GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 > > > > > > "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" > > > - Albert Einstein > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) > > > > > > iD8DBQE900UI1rcusafx20MRAthsAJoCWuyUS6fwg9KVcDDbOdgGszQKjACfTz4n > > > uygGR+durG8FB6Mh05PCEZM= > > > =Vi2S > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > >
